Just to show you I'm not compeletely heartless, I'll give you this last opportunity to back away. To help you out, let's take a look at how you misrepresented what I said and then misrepresented the Constitution:
Me (paraphrasing): "What if we found written evidence that the 2nd Amendment was intended to preserve a state's right to maintain a militia?"
You (paraphrasing): "What?! What!? The Constitution says nothing about states' rights! Nothing, I tell you!"
Synopsys: Note how Mr. Elbucko substitutes the concept of "states' rights" for my phrase "a state's right." What a foolish thing to do! Moreover, Mr. Elbucko has apparently forgotten the 10th Amemdment, which speaks of powers delegated to the states, and implicitly supports the idea that the states do have "rights" (call them legitimate powers, if you like) under the Constitution.
See? And we haven't even gotten to the part where my analogy floats inches over your head!
Quite the contrary. Your reaction of disbelief to the revelation that there is no such thing as "states' rights", or "a state's right" is common among those who have not intellectually explored the Constitution and the history and philosophy that it emanated from. Rights are not zero-sum, that is my right to life does not cause another to die, my right to liberty does not cause another to become a slave, or my happiness cause anothers despair. Such is the nature of "Rights".
Powers, however, are zero-sum. The federal power of a navy proscribed the states from having navies. The federal power of the mint denies the states the power to mint money. A state may claim the "right" to print its own currency, but that would be patently unconstitutional.
Mr. Elbucko has apparently forgotten the 10th Amendment, which speaks of powers delegated to the states, and implicitly supports the idea that the states do have "rights" (call them legitimate powers, if you like) under the Constitution.
"Supports the idea"? OK, "Oh Wise One", argue the bogus concept of "supports the idea" before the Supreme Court and see how far you get. The 1st Amendment uses the term "powers" and that is what it meant. The problems we have with society now is because so many voters like you do not understand the Constitution. No matter how much you wish the concept of "states rights" or "a state's rights, it does not exist in the Constitution. Only individuals have "Rights"!
Now, Oh Wise One, where in the Constitution does it confer upon a foreign national who has conceived with another foreign national the right to give birth to a US Citizen because the birth was within the borders of the US?